Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 9th September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Access and the access should be refused entirely, only where it is reasonable in all the circumstances. Obviously, with workers for the statutory access purposes, that employers should take reasonable steps to facilitate circumstances to do so. The framework encourages employers and trade unions to first reach access agreements through discussion and negotiation. However, where this is not possible by negotiation, the framework enables the union or employer to refer the case to the Central Arbitration Committee, known as the CAC, for determination on whether access should be granted and on what terms.
The regulations before the Committee provide practical and operational detail needed for the framework to operate effectively. They establish the procedures for access requests and negotiations. Set out the matters the CAC must consider when determining applications and establish the enforcement framework where statutory access agreements are breached. The accompanying draft Code of Practice supports employers and trade unions on how the framework should operate in practice, including requests for access, negotiations, digital access and enforcement.
Turning now to specific matters included in the regulations. Part three of the regulations provides that the CAC must refuse an application for statutory access where the employer has fewer than 21 workers. This threshold aligns with the access framework with the existing statutory recognition regime in the same act, applying a consistent threshold across these closely related frameworks provides greater clarity for employers, worker unions and the CAC while recognising the operational and administrative challenges that the smallest employers may face.
That is why, with fewer than 21 workers fall outside of the scope of the CAC imposed access agreements regarding the practical operation of access agreements, the government has been clear that access must operate in a way that is compatible with legitimate operational needs of employers. Access is therefore not unrestricted. It is not unreasonably interfere with an employer's operation. Access will take place under an agreement setting out where, when and how it may be exercised.
Union officials will need to take account of relevant operational health, safety, security and safeguarding requirements, and part three of the regulations sets out certain circumstances where it is to be regarded as reasonable for the CAC to refuse access in the circumstances where access must be refused altogether, including where the CAC considers this necessary in the interests of national security or to avoid prejudice, prejudice in the prevention, detection or prosecution of criminal offences. We recognise that different workplaces face different operational realities.
What may be appropriate in an office environment may not be appropriate in a customer facing business, on a construction site or a high security workplace. The framework therefore requires access agreements to reflect the circumstances of the workplace concerned. Turning to frequency of access. Part three of the regulations and the draft code. Identify weekly access as one of the model access terms. The government's view is that access agreements should provide a genuine opportunity for trade unions to communicate with workers, rather than access being so infrequent that its practical value is limited.
The government considers weekly access to provide an appropriate level of regularity to support effective engagement between trade unions and workers. It helps to maintain continuity of engagement, increases the likelihood that union representatives can reach workers across different shifts and different working patterns, and provides employers with a predictable and structured pattern of engagement. Weekly access is not mandatory in trade unions, and employers remain free to negotiate arrangements that reflect the circumstances of the workplace and the workforce concerned.
Part four of the regulations specify the maximum financial penalties that the CAC may impose on the Liable Party, and the factors it must consider when determining the exact penalty amount. It is important to emphasise that financial penalties are not available at the initial complaint stage, and the framework is designed first to provide the liable party with the opportunity to remedy their actions and secure compliance. The CAC may require the Labour Party to take specified steps to ensure that access take place in accordance with the agreement.
Financial penalties become available only where there is subsequent non-compliance after the CAC has already intervened and the framework adopts a graduated graduated approach. The maximum penalty is £75,000 for a first penalty order, £150,000 for a second and £500,000 for subsequent penalty orders under the same access agreement. These are maximum amounts, not automatic penalties, and the CAC must consider factors including the nature and the gravity of the breach and the number of workers affected.
This ensures that penalties can be tailored to the particular circumstances of the case, while providing the CAC with meaningful powers to address deliberate and repeated non-compliance where necessary. The government is committed to ensuring that the new access framework operates effectively in practice. That is why, alongside the statutory review requirements contained in the regulations, we have committed to reviewing the operation of the framework within six months of implementation. That review will consider how the framework is functioning in practice, in consultation with trade unions, employers and the CAC.
The Regulations and Code of Practice establish the operational and procedural framework for a new statutory right of access, and establish clear routes for determination and enforcement. Where agreement cannot be reached or an agreement is subsequently breached. Crucially, the framework enables unions to engage with workers in person or digitally for the purposes of representation, support, recruitment, organisation and collective bargaining and delivers on our commitment to strengthen fair and constructive industrial relations as part of our plan to make work pay.
I therefore commend the regulations and the Code of Practice to the Committee.
The regulations before the Committee provide practical and operational detail needed for the framework to operate effectively. They establish the procedures for access requests and negotiations. Set out the matters the CAC must consider when determining applications and establish the enforcement framework where statutory access agreements are breached. The accompanying draft Code of Practice supports employers and trade unions on how the framework should operate in practice, including requests for access, negotiations, digital access and enforcement.
Turning now to specific matters included in the regulations. Part three of the regulations provides that the CAC must refuse an application for statutory access where the employer has fewer than 21 workers. This threshold aligns with the access framework with the existing statutory recognition regime in the same act, applying a consistent threshold across these closely related frameworks provides greater clarity for employers, worker unions and the CAC while recognising the operational and administrative challenges that the smallest employers may face.
That is why, with fewer than 21 workers fall outside of the scope of the CAC imposed access agreements regarding the practical operation of access agreements, the government has been clear that access must operate in a way that is compatible with legitimate operational needs of employers. Access is therefore not unrestricted. It is not unreasonably interfere with an employer's operation. Access will take place under an agreement setting out where, when and how it may be exercised.
Union officials will need to take account of relevant operational health, safety, security and safeguarding requirements, and part three of the regulations sets out certain circumstances where it is to be regarded as reasonable for the CAC to refuse access in the circumstances where access must be refused altogether, including where the CAC considers this necessary in the interests of national security or to avoid prejudice, prejudice in the prevention, detection or prosecution of criminal offences. We recognise that different workplaces face different operational realities.
What may be appropriate in an office environment may not be appropriate in a customer facing business, on a construction site or a high security workplace. The framework therefore requires access agreements to reflect the circumstances of the workplace concerned. Turning to frequency of access. Part three of the regulations and the draft code. Identify weekly access as one of the model access terms. The government's view is that access agreements should provide a genuine opportunity for trade unions to communicate with workers, rather than access being so infrequent that its practical value is limited.
The government considers weekly access to provide an appropriate level of regularity to support effective engagement between trade unions and workers. It helps to maintain continuity of engagement, increases the likelihood that union representatives can reach workers across different shifts and different working patterns, and provides employers with a predictable and structured pattern of engagement. Weekly access is not mandatory in trade unions, and employers remain free to negotiate arrangements that reflect the circumstances of the workplace and the workforce concerned.
Part four of the regulations specify the maximum financial penalties that the CAC may impose on the Liable Party, and the factors it must consider when determining the exact penalty amount. It is important to emphasise that financial penalties are not available at the initial complaint stage, and the framework is designed first to provide the liable party with the opportunity to remedy their actions and secure compliance. The CAC may require the Labour Party to take specified steps to ensure that access take place in accordance with the agreement.
Financial penalties become available only where there is subsequent non-compliance after the CAC has already intervened and the framework adopts a graduated graduated approach. The maximum penalty is £75,000 for a first penalty order, £150,000 for a second and £500,000 for subsequent penalty orders under the same access agreement. These are maximum amounts, not automatic penalties, and the CAC must consider factors including the nature and the gravity of the breach and the number of workers affected.
This ensures that penalties can be tailored to the particular circumstances of the case, while providing the CAC with meaningful powers to address deliberate and repeated non-compliance where necessary. The government is committed to ensuring that the new access framework operates effectively in practice. That is why, alongside the statutory review requirements contained in the regulations, we have committed to reviewing the operation of the framework within six months of implementation. That review will consider how the framework is functioning in practice, in consultation with trade unions, employers and the CAC.
The Regulations and Code of Practice establish the operational and procedural framework for a new statutory right of access, and establish clear routes for determination and enforcement. Where agreement cannot be reached or an agreement is subsequently breached. Crucially, the framework enables unions to engage with workers in person or digitally for the purposes of representation, support, recruitment, organisation and collective bargaining and delivers on our commitment to strengthen fair and constructive industrial relations as part of our plan to make work pay.
I therefore commend the regulations and the Code of Practice to the Committee.
14:37
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The question is that the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice on the right of trade unions to access workplaces. Just to clarify, the debate before now is on both instruments. At the end of this debate will vote on the first instrument. Then I will ask the minister to move formally the second instrument, and we will vote in might. If that is the wish of the committee. Bradley Thomas on behalf of the opposition.
14:38
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you, chair. This code of practice that grants a legal right to access workplaces with more than 21 workers for trade unions poses a severe risk to UK business stability and national economic vitality. Looking at workplace dynamics, cultivating harmonious manager employee relationships is a proven catalyst for business growth. It's therefore concerning that a recent survey found that 1 in 4 workers believe managers and employee representatives are ineffective at working together to prevent and resolve conflict.
This would suggest the increased presence via workplace access may not be as beneficial as the government suggests. The government should focus on action that is guaranteed to actively improve employment relationships, thereby preventing the workplace productivity lag that is estimated to cost the UK economy £257 billion per year. Rather than rolling the dice on policy that industry leaders have warned will disrupt business output and autonomy, the cost of strikes is already significant. London tube strikes are predicted to cost the UK economy up to £760 million this year alone, and the resident doctor strikes of 2025 cost the NHS approximately £240 million, increasing this cost through more frequent strikes, which we know is linked to greater union presence.
As I demonstrated to the government yesterday, and now lowering productivity via disrupted employment relations and burdening businesses with the high cost of facilitating mandatory union access is highly counterproductive. No government should want to threaten the financial viability of domestic businesses. Yet here we are discussing legislation on trade union access to workplaces that research has found will cost businesses over £1 billion to facilitate. To add further insult to injury, experts have warned that the proposed frequency of weekly access will cause excessive disruption.
Extremely concerning is the notion that small and medium enterprises are the ones who will take on the higher proportion of predicted costs estimated to reach almost £600 million. The government will claim to be supporting small businesses with their exemption for workplaces with fewer than 21 employees. But what it fails to account for is that thousands of small businesses are left in a precarious position. A key criterion to meet the definition of a small business in the UK is having 50 or fewer employees.
The remarkably low threshold of 21 employees leaves thousands of small businesses completely unsupported. Small businesses, which are already struggling and trust in the government to support them being at an all time low. Numerous surveys have revealed their widespread frustration, with 58% feeling ignored by politicians in one and over half feeling unsupported by the government in another. So what incentive is there to be an entrepreneur or small business owner any more? The UK needs small businesses.
We need the risk takers that provide jobs and generate economic growth. Yet all the government appears to be doing is throwing more hurdles their way, with the latest being the momentous cost and disruption of mandatory trade union access, not to mention the financial penalties of up to £500,000 for non-compliance that could destitute many small businesses instantly. The UK should be proud of our small business community. They consistently endure challenges and hardships to maintain their position as a fundamental pillar of the British economy, rather than continuing to introduce policy that claims to be pro-worker yet has the potential to wreak havoc on British business, British businesses and the economy.
The government needs to take a simultaneous, pro-business and pro-worker approach, one that supports businesses and helps workers to keep more of what they earn by addressing the mounting cost of living. It's for these reasons that we'll be voting against this, and for these reasons, I'd also ask the minister what their plan is to ensure that small businesses do not become financially or administratively overwhelmed by the Employment Rights Act 2025 or its secondary legislation.
This would suggest the increased presence via workplace access may not be as beneficial as the government suggests. The government should focus on action that is guaranteed to actively improve employment relationships, thereby preventing the workplace productivity lag that is estimated to cost the UK economy £257 billion per year. Rather than rolling the dice on policy that industry leaders have warned will disrupt business output and autonomy, the cost of strikes is already significant. London tube strikes are predicted to cost the UK economy up to £760 million this year alone, and the resident doctor strikes of 2025 cost the NHS approximately £240 million, increasing this cost through more frequent strikes, which we know is linked to greater union presence.
As I demonstrated to the government yesterday, and now lowering productivity via disrupted employment relations and burdening businesses with the high cost of facilitating mandatory union access is highly counterproductive. No government should want to threaten the financial viability of domestic businesses. Yet here we are discussing legislation on trade union access to workplaces that research has found will cost businesses over £1 billion to facilitate. To add further insult to injury, experts have warned that the proposed frequency of weekly access will cause excessive disruption.
Extremely concerning is the notion that small and medium enterprises are the ones who will take on the higher proportion of predicted costs estimated to reach almost £600 million. The government will claim to be supporting small businesses with their exemption for workplaces with fewer than 21 employees. But what it fails to account for is that thousands of small businesses are left in a precarious position. A key criterion to meet the definition of a small business in the UK is having 50 or fewer employees.
The remarkably low threshold of 21 employees leaves thousands of small businesses completely unsupported. Small businesses, which are already struggling and trust in the government to support them being at an all time low. Numerous surveys have revealed their widespread frustration, with 58% feeling ignored by politicians in one and over half feeling unsupported by the government in another. So what incentive is there to be an entrepreneur or small business owner any more? The UK needs small businesses.
We need the risk takers that provide jobs and generate economic growth. Yet all the government appears to be doing is throwing more hurdles their way, with the latest being the momentous cost and disruption of mandatory trade union access, not to mention the financial penalties of up to £500,000 for non-compliance that could destitute many small businesses instantly. The UK should be proud of our small business community. They consistently endure challenges and hardships to maintain their position as a fundamental pillar of the British economy, rather than continuing to introduce policy that claims to be pro-worker yet has the potential to wreak havoc on British business, British businesses and the economy.
The government needs to take a simultaneous, pro-business and pro-worker approach, one that supports businesses and helps workers to keep more of what they earn by addressing the mounting cost of living. It's for these reasons that we'll be voting against this, and for these reasons, I'd also ask the minister what their plan is to ensure that small businesses do not become financially or administratively overwhelmed by the Employment Rights Act 2025 or its secondary legislation.
14:42
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, chair. So I should start by declaring my interests as set out in my register of members interests. I thank the Minister for her engagement with the trade union movement and those of us who are trade union MPs on these issues, and for continuing to champion this agenda in government. I congratulate her on her recent promotion. I wanted to note how important the employment rights access rights are, and contrary to what the opposition spokesperson has said, those of us who sit on the Business Select Committee who did a careful examination of the access rights, when asked, the business representatives that joined us on our panel representing hospitality representing retail, they agreed that the cost of facilitating access would be basically negligible, and it is clear that trade union access to workplaces and more than that, trade union recognition brings significant benefits to workers in all sizes of workplace, not least that they are more likely to be better paid, not least that they are more likely to work in safer workplaces and more family friendly workplaces.
Turning to these regulations specifically, the right of access was a clear manifesto commitment, and we must deliver it in a way that is meaningful and effective in practice. Knowing that hostile employers with deep pockets and access to specialist lawyers will push back hard. That's why I'm here today, because I still am afraid, have some concerns about the code of practice and the regs. So I welcome the government's commitment to review and consult on these measures shortly after implementation to make sure we get them right on enforcement.
The proposed cap on fines of 500 grand is likely unlikely to act as an effective deterrent for some of the world's largest corporations, and I know, having welcomed the valiant GMB members of BH5, Amazon's Coventry warehouse to Parliament and to my select committee, ministers should seriously consider replacing it with penalties based on a percentage of global turnover. Like the enforcement regime for GDPR breaches, that will provide a more proper deterrent and stop US style union busting coming over here.
There is a real risk that I have to give away my thanks for giving away. Again.
Turning to these regulations specifically, the right of access was a clear manifesto commitment, and we must deliver it in a way that is meaningful and effective in practice. Knowing that hostile employers with deep pockets and access to specialist lawyers will push back hard. That's why I'm here today, because I still am afraid, have some concerns about the code of practice and the regs. So I welcome the government's commitment to review and consult on these measures shortly after implementation to make sure we get them right on enforcement.
The proposed cap on fines of 500 grand is likely unlikely to act as an effective deterrent for some of the world's largest corporations, and I know, having welcomed the valiant GMB members of BH5, Amazon's Coventry warehouse to Parliament and to my select committee, ministers should seriously consider replacing it with penalties based on a percentage of global turnover. Like the enforcement regime for GDPR breaches, that will provide a more proper deterrent and stop US style union busting coming over here.
There is a real risk that I have to give away my thanks for giving away. Again.
14:44
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I'd like to refer to my. Declaration of interests and being secretary of the Trade Union Group of Labour MPs, Mr. Stringer, does my honourable friend understand, recognise these union busting firms in America? Amazon, for example, paid up to $14.2 million to bust. Unions refused trade union access. So that's one of the reasons why we've got to make sure that this 500 zero zero £0 cap and needs a total review, a total overhaul to protect the workers in the workplace.
14:45
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. As you would expect, I agree with my honourable friend on that point. And he's right to raise the scale of investment that companies like Amazon have made in union busting. The Amazon executives who joined us at the Business and trade select committee two years ago seems barely familiar with the UK employment, employment rights legislation and the UK labour market environment. We do not want US style union busting in the United Kingdom.
There is a real risk that hostile employers could use vexatious complaints as a tactic to impede union access to workplaces, and it cannot be right that unions might be fined for going to talk to workers. It also shouldn't be the case that unions should have to bear the cost of expensive legal advice to enforce access rights or defend themselves against vexatious complaints. But if employers are found to have broken the code of practice that fines are paid to the Treasury rather than to the workers or unions who suffered the detriment, as you would expect, I don't think we should exempt smaller workplaces, and I do think we should amp up the protection from victimisation for workers and stop workers losing pay if they engage with unions during the access process.
Model access agreements should include clear protections on these points. I am so glad that ministers have promised a review and consultation shortly after the implementation of these regulations, and I strongly welcome that commitment. This review must lead swiftly to strengthen regulations and a strengthened code of practice. The right of access is critical to improving life at work, and we must ensure that these rights work really well in practice , as intended.
In the manifesto that we on this side stood on. Thank you so much.
There is a real risk that hostile employers could use vexatious complaints as a tactic to impede union access to workplaces, and it cannot be right that unions might be fined for going to talk to workers. It also shouldn't be the case that unions should have to bear the cost of expensive legal advice to enforce access rights or defend themselves against vexatious complaints. But if employers are found to have broken the code of practice that fines are paid to the Treasury rather than to the workers or unions who suffered the detriment, as you would expect, I don't think we should exempt smaller workplaces, and I do think we should amp up the protection from victimisation for workers and stop workers losing pay if they engage with unions during the access process.
Model access agreements should include clear protections on these points. I am so glad that ministers have promised a review and consultation shortly after the implementation of these regulations, and I strongly welcome that commitment. This review must lead swiftly to strengthen regulations and a strengthened code of practice. The right of access is critical to improving life at work, and we must ensure that these rights work really well in practice , as intended.
In the manifesto that we on this side stood on. Thank you so much.
14:47
14:47
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Can I apologise? First of all, I will need to speak and then leave because I'm doing a presentation in the chamber. So I'm keeping my eye on the on the business that's taking place. I declare my interest as well. I'm the chair of the RMT parliamentary parliamentary group, and I just want to raise one issue with regard to the concerns that RMT have. And again, I welcome the Minister's. Well, first of all, commitment for seeing this all through.
I think it's an excellent piece of work. But secondly, also the commitment that there'll be a review fairly shortly afterwards. I want to set something for the agenda for that review, if that's possible. If I can just go through some of the details. The union itself, and I think the seafarers unions overall have welcomed the new regulations, but they actually don't improve the situation with regard to access for seafarers. And in fact, what they do is they simply repeat the restrictions that we have already in section eight, the Merchant Shipping Act, that was introduced in 1995 at the height of the conservative government's anti-trade union legislation being introduced, and the attack on trade union rights.
So it means now that trade unions will only be able to improve access to the regulations on UK flagged ships. And what we've seen in this recent period is a large number of companies flagging elsewhere in other countries. So that means, just for example, with regard to RMT, it means they won't be able to organise seafarers as a result of these access regulations on P&O ferries. Irish Ferries, Coble threat and a whole range of other merchant ships registered overseas, even though they're calling a UK port on a daily basis.
When this was raised in the House of Lords by honourable friend Lord John Hendy on an amendment at the time, this was way back in 2025. Baroness Jones then gave the commitment that would explore how we could secure the objectives behind the amendment, and at that point, John Hendy's amendment sought to apply the provisions of the access arrangements to seafarers working on ships with a sufficient link to the to Great Britain. That link, if the Minister will remember, was 120 calls at an individual port that ideally that's where we where we want to go.
And again, it's just a matter, I think, of trying to get in this review as rapidly as possible the right form of words, which gives the protection that the government intends for all workers. We don't want to be in a situation where seafarers themselves remain vulnerable, as they have been, for example, under P&O.
I think it's an excellent piece of work. But secondly, also the commitment that there'll be a review fairly shortly afterwards. I want to set something for the agenda for that review, if that's possible. If I can just go through some of the details. The union itself, and I think the seafarers unions overall have welcomed the new regulations, but they actually don't improve the situation with regard to access for seafarers. And in fact, what they do is they simply repeat the restrictions that we have already in section eight, the Merchant Shipping Act, that was introduced in 1995 at the height of the conservative government's anti-trade union legislation being introduced, and the attack on trade union rights.
So it means now that trade unions will only be able to improve access to the regulations on UK flagged ships. And what we've seen in this recent period is a large number of companies flagging elsewhere in other countries. So that means, just for example, with regard to RMT, it means they won't be able to organise seafarers as a result of these access regulations on P&O ferries. Irish Ferries, Coble threat and a whole range of other merchant ships registered overseas, even though they're calling a UK port on a daily basis.
When this was raised in the House of Lords by honourable friend Lord John Hendy on an amendment at the time, this was way back in 2025. Baroness Jones then gave the commitment that would explore how we could secure the objectives behind the amendment, and at that point, John Hendy's amendment sought to apply the provisions of the access arrangements to seafarers working on ships with a sufficient link to the to Great Britain. That link, if the Minister will remember, was 120 calls at an individual port that ideally that's where we where we want to go.
And again, it's just a matter, I think, of trying to get in this review as rapidly as possible the right form of words, which gives the protection that the government intends for all workers. We don't want to be in a situation where seafarers themselves remain vulnerable, as they have been, for example, under P&O.
14:49
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Stringer. I don't have a formal speech as such, but I just wanted to raise a couple of points about context and put a particular question to the minister. If you're if that's okay, can I first of all, start by declaring an interest. I was formerly a in a previous life, a member of the RMT, and I'm currently as a member of Parliament, a member of the RMT parliamentary group.
And I think most of the trade union groups as well. But but can I say I also served in the last Parliament on the Seafarers Wages Bill. I also served on the Transport Select Committee, and it may actually have been in this room where we heard evidence from the chief executive of P&O ferries, Peter Hebblethwaite, following. And I just want to remind the opposition spokesman because I think he's new to the House. He may have he may not be aware of this.
But the chief exec of P&O ferries admitted publicly to a joint committee of the Transport Select Committee and the Business Select Committee that he was fully aware that P&O ferries were breaking the law in three areas, not just on consultation, but went ahead with the issuing of redundancy notices to over 800 British based seafarers. Some of them were sacked at a minute's notice by video call. There was uproar, uproar in the House, including at the time on the government benches.
This is in 2022. It happened on Saint Patrick's Day on the 17th of March, and a commitment that this must never be allowed to happen again. And I might say I've been involved in discussions and and lobbying ministers, members of my party and shadow ministers to try and ensure that the legislation affords a degree of protection to UK based seafarers. I fully understand the Minister's point about the difficulties that we're facing.
The size of the British UK merchant fleet has declined quite dramatically. I think we now have about 8 million gross tons that are UK flagged GB flagged ships. It's quite a dramatic reduction, and the majority of UK based seafarers are working on ships that are flagged in other countries, so we have to be able to offer them some measure of protection. While I fully understand the difficulties of ensuring the complexities of international law, we.
It can't be a get out for no Irish Ferries or any other commercial entity to simply walk away from their legal responsibilities in respect of employment protections. So while I thank the Minister for reassurances, can I urge her to continue discussions with the RMT as to how we can effectively provide these minimal protections to UK seafarers, particularly those who are working on overseas flagships? Thank you, Mr. Stringer. Thank you, Mr.
Stringer. Can I just also refer to my register of interest as a proud trade union member? This does make me the only legitimate trade union baron in this place. And we're all we're all. We're all up for. We're all up for a bit of that first, first and foremost, I mean, I think everybody welcomes the Employment Rights Act. It introduces new rights for unions to meet and access workers. I just believe as part of this consultation, we've got to get this right, because opposition parties have already said that they'll they won't support this legislation.
And if they ever get in, they'll probably reverse this legislation. So we've got to get this right in order to make sure that it sticks. And I think that that's really what's crucial about this. And it does modernise industrial relations. As far as we're concerned. You know, it is obscene to have trade unions having to stand outside workplaces not allowed through the gates, giving out leaflets. We're scared. Workers walking past too scared probably to take that leaflet because they know that there's hostility.
It's time to end those hostilities, and it's time for people to know that they've got the legal right and freedom to join a trade union. Give way on that point. Thank
And I think most of the trade union groups as well. But but can I say I also served in the last Parliament on the Seafarers Wages Bill. I also served on the Transport Select Committee, and it may actually have been in this room where we heard evidence from the chief executive of P&O ferries, Peter Hebblethwaite, following. And I just want to remind the opposition spokesman because I think he's new to the House. He may have he may not be aware of this.
But the chief exec of P&O ferries admitted publicly to a joint committee of the Transport Select Committee and the Business Select Committee that he was fully aware that P&O ferries were breaking the law in three areas, not just on consultation, but went ahead with the issuing of redundancy notices to over 800 British based seafarers. Some of them were sacked at a minute's notice by video call. There was uproar, uproar in the House, including at the time on the government benches.
This is in 2022. It happened on Saint Patrick's Day on the 17th of March, and a commitment that this must never be allowed to happen again. And I might say I've been involved in discussions and and lobbying ministers, members of my party and shadow ministers to try and ensure that the legislation affords a degree of protection to UK based seafarers. I fully understand the Minister's point about the difficulties that we're facing.
The size of the British UK merchant fleet has declined quite dramatically. I think we now have about 8 million gross tons that are UK flagged GB flagged ships. It's quite a dramatic reduction, and the majority of UK based seafarers are working on ships that are flagged in other countries, so we have to be able to offer them some measure of protection. While I fully understand the difficulties of ensuring the complexities of international law, we.
It can't be a get out for no Irish Ferries or any other commercial entity to simply walk away from their legal responsibilities in respect of employment protections. So while I thank the Minister for reassurances, can I urge her to continue discussions with the RMT as to how we can effectively provide these minimal protections to UK seafarers, particularly those who are working on overseas flagships? Thank you, Mr. Stringer. Thank you, Mr.
Stringer. Can I just also refer to my register of interest as a proud trade union member? This does make me the only legitimate trade union baron in this place. And we're all we're all. We're all up for. We're all up for a bit of that first, first and foremost, I mean, I think everybody welcomes the Employment Rights Act. It introduces new rights for unions to meet and access workers. I just believe as part of this consultation, we've got to get this right, because opposition parties have already said that they'll they won't support this legislation.
And if they ever get in, they'll probably reverse this legislation. So we've got to get this right in order to make sure that it sticks. And I think that that's really what's crucial about this. And it does modernise industrial relations. As far as we're concerned. You know, it is obscene to have trade unions having to stand outside workplaces not allowed through the gates, giving out leaflets. We're scared. Workers walking past too scared probably to take that leaflet because they know that there's hostility.
It's time to end those hostilities, and it's time for people to know that they've got the legal right and freedom to join a trade union. Give way on that point. Thank
14:54
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
you. I'm really, really grateful for my friend, and he's making a great point. I remember standing with the GMB outside of Amazon in my constituency, and people were harassed by security and by Amazon themselves, and to not joining a trade union. And they haven't come on board with this, despite promises that they will bring trade unions around the table. Does he agree with me that this kind of legislation is well past time, and it's a brilliant time to start enacting it so that people in my constituency who work for these big giants, like Amazon, can have the rights and protections that they absolutely deserve.
14:54
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
No, no, I do agree. And, you know, I have to say, I wish people had put as much energy into condemning those sort of actions as they do to having a proper trade unions. I really do, you know, because it is about time that we that we evened and leveled that playing field. And I think that that's what this legislation does. And you're right in what you're saying in terms of giants like Amazon. I stood with GMB workers in Coventry when I was regional secretary of the TUC, trying to access that workplace.
And basically it was forbidden. It wasn't allowed. And organizations like that will absolutely swallow half a million quid's worth of fine after, fine after fine after fine, because they'll make the investment to keep trade unions out. And I think that's why the cap is so wrong in terms of this. And I do think that we need to reconsider that, because unless these people see that the repercussions of what they're doing is going to cost them, then those people will just carry on doing what they're doing.
They've already raised P and O, P and O sat there. They sat there and said in front of the committee in this place, that they knew what they were doing was illegal. And the reason they carried on doing it was because they could take the fines, they could swallow the fines, and they could make sure that basically that's what kept unions out, and that's how they derecognised trade unions in their workforce by sacking their workforce. So you've got things like that.
There's got to be some kind of fine in relation to turnover. It can't be a cap because those global giants are basically will swallow it up. And the last point that I'd like to make to the minister is this exemption for workplaces with fewer than 21 employees. I've asked and I've asked and I've asked. No one's come up with any logic as far as that number is concerned. All it will do, in our opinion, is create incentives to restructure.
This has got to be done universally. Injustice doesn't hide within numbers. It either exists or it don't. And if it does, and people want to trade union to access their workplace, then they should be allowed to do that regardless of the number of people that are working in there. As I've said earlier on, workers rights are crucial. If the workers themselves are too scared to enforce those rights, they're not worth the paper they're written on.
We've got to change the narrative as far as trade unions are concerned and accept them as part of our economy, accept them as part of what's good for working people, and accept them by making sure that they can't be kept out on the cheap by global giants, and that workers within any workplace can access that union. Yeah, yeah.
And basically it was forbidden. It wasn't allowed. And organizations like that will absolutely swallow half a million quid's worth of fine after, fine after fine after fine, because they'll make the investment to keep trade unions out. And I think that's why the cap is so wrong in terms of this. And I do think that we need to reconsider that, because unless these people see that the repercussions of what they're doing is going to cost them, then those people will just carry on doing what they're doing.
They've already raised P and O, P and O sat there. They sat there and said in front of the committee in this place, that they knew what they were doing was illegal. And the reason they carried on doing it was because they could take the fines, they could swallow the fines, and they could make sure that basically that's what kept unions out, and that's how they derecognised trade unions in their workforce by sacking their workforce. So you've got things like that.
There's got to be some kind of fine in relation to turnover. It can't be a cap because those global giants are basically will swallow it up. And the last point that I'd like to make to the minister is this exemption for workplaces with fewer than 21 employees. I've asked and I've asked and I've asked. No one's come up with any logic as far as that number is concerned. All it will do, in our opinion, is create incentives to restructure.
This has got to be done universally. Injustice doesn't hide within numbers. It either exists or it don't. And if it does, and people want to trade union to access their workplace, then they should be allowed to do that regardless of the number of people that are working in there. As I've said earlier on, workers rights are crucial. If the workers themselves are too scared to enforce those rights, they're not worth the paper they're written on.
We've got to change the narrative as far as trade unions are concerned and accept them as part of our economy, accept them as part of what's good for working people, and accept them by making sure that they can't be kept out on the cheap by global giants, and that workers within any workplace can access that union. Yeah, yeah.
14:57
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you. Chair, may I also declare my membership of the RMT parliamentary group and also a proud trade unionist. I welcome these regulations, regulations and the government's efforts to strengthen trade union access rights. But we do need to raise a concern specifically about how that will be applied to seafarers. So as drafted, the regulations simply replicate existing regulations. As we heard from my honourable friend from Hayes and Harlington, meaning enhanced access rights will only apply to crews on UK flagged vessels, which in practice would exclude seafarers working from UK ports every single day, including those employed on services operated by P&O ferries, Irish Ferries and other vessels which are registered overseas.
During the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, ministers did recognise the need to consider how employment protections should apply to seafarers with a strong connection to Great Britain, and continued and committed to continue discussions with the maritime unions on this issue. And Baroness Jones, in the other place, specifically undertook to explore how the objectives behind Lord Hendy's amendment could be secured. So could the Minister, therefore, please confirm that the government will work with the RMT and other maritime unions on a review of how these access rights and wider employment protections can be extended to seafarers working on vessels with a sufficient link to Great Britain, regardless of the flag it flies under.
Thank you.
During the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, ministers did recognise the need to consider how employment protections should apply to seafarers with a strong connection to Great Britain, and continued and committed to continue discussions with the maritime unions on this issue. And Baroness Jones, in the other place, specifically undertook to explore how the objectives behind Lord Hendy's amendment could be secured. So could the Minister, therefore, please confirm that the government will work with the RMT and other maritime unions on a review of how these access rights and wider employment protections can be extended to seafarers working on vessels with a sufficient link to Great Britain, regardless of the flag it flies under.
Thank you.
14:59
14:59
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you, chair, and I want to thank all colleagues for their contributions during this debate is very much appreciated, and the scrutiny offered has been constructive to you, and I thank all colleagues for their speeches and interventions. And turning to start off, the shadow ministers reflections, particularly around growth. And what I'd start with is that as a principle and a starting point, the argument that workers rights are bad for growth is just a false choice.
A modern economy needs productive workplaces. It needs good communication and a workforce that feels like its voice has been heard. Absolutely. And this framework supports those things. Exactly what we are discussing today. We're asking business to engage with a lawful process with clear rules and safeguards. And hopefully my introductory speech outlined lots of those in detail. And the draft code is designed to make access practical. Exactly.
For that purpose. It encourages those voluntary agreements first and provides that clear route to resolve disagreements where they cannot be reached. Good employment relations are absolutely a foundation of productivity and for our country, and we truly, truly believe that the two go hand in hand in terms of growth and workers rights and building that economy, SMEs in particular. He referenced those, and I thank him for doing that. They are the backbone, yes.
A modern economy needs productive workplaces. It needs good communication and a workforce that feels like its voice has been heard. Absolutely. And this framework supports those things. Exactly what we are discussing today. We're asking business to engage with a lawful process with clear rules and safeguards. And hopefully my introductory speech outlined lots of those in detail. And the draft code is designed to make access practical. Exactly.
For that purpose. It encourages those voluntary agreements first and provides that clear route to resolve disagreements where they cannot be reached. Good employment relations are absolutely a foundation of productivity and for our country, and we truly, truly believe that the two go hand in hand in terms of growth and workers rights and building that economy, SMEs in particular. He referenced those, and I thank him for doing that. They are the backbone, yes.
15:01
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Gareth Snell Mr. Stringer, I declare my interest as vice chair of the unison group of MPs. The minister rightly says it's a false choice to say that good employment relations and the economy would. She also accept, though, that it is a false choice to say that more than 21 employees in the company have should have access rights, and fewer than 21 shouldn't, because that is still a choice that's being put on by the government to suggest that somehow workers in smaller companies are less likely to be exploited by their employers than those in larger companies.
15:02
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I thank my honourable friend for his intervention. It is absolutely appreciated. I outlined the rationale in terms of the threshold aligning with the statutory recognition framework. In terms of that 21 threshold. Of course, they are still voluntary below that threshold, and lots of trade unions are recognising those smaller and micro employers and where we can encourage that good cooperation working with trade unions, we will always, always do that. And because SMEs in particular are the backbone of our economy, as I have said, I come from a small business family, absolutely know just how hard small businesses work day in, day out for our communities and in all of our constituencies.
Yes.
Yes.
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:02
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Engagement and so on. But can I just point out a practical problem in the context of seafarers with the vast majority of the merchant fleet not flagged with GB owners? The problem that we've got is on on, including on, on the ferries and so on that are working out of British ports for more than 120 days a year. There's a relatively small number of UK based seafarers, perhaps less than 21 amongst the complement of the crew.
So to set that arbitrary figure, I mean, I can understand what the minister is saying in in relation to small businesses more generally on terra firma, but in the in the maritime setting, I think you need to apply a bit of flexibility. And may I also, while I'm on my feet, because I don't interrupt again, please forgive me, Mr. Stringer. You know, we were seeking assurances in relation to that threshold and in relation to the to the fines that were being applied, and if the minister is unable to give that assurance within the context of this statutory instrument or these statutory instruments, could we could we press for a meeting with the Minister so that we can explore the options that might be available? Thank you, Minister.
So to set that arbitrary figure, I mean, I can understand what the minister is saying in in relation to small businesses more generally on terra firma, but in the in the maritime setting, I think you need to apply a bit of flexibility. And may I also, while I'm on my feet, because I don't interrupt again, please forgive me, Mr. Stringer. You know, we were seeking assurances in relation to that threshold and in relation to the to the fines that were being applied, and if the minister is unable to give that assurance within the context of this statutory instrument or these statutory instruments, could we could we press for a meeting with the Minister so that we can explore the options that might be available? Thank you, Minister.
15:05
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I thank my friend and promise him I will get to his point, particularly on seafarers shortly and on the on the wider review and hopefully respond and touch on a lot of those points. I hope colleagues always know that I'm available for conversations on all all areas of my brief. Just to finish, the shadow minister raised a small businesses. I think I've touched on just how important they are and how committed we are to working with them, whether it's Employment Rights Act or across our department and across government.
And so particularly for ERA, as he mentioned, we're working closely with SMEs, particularly on the consultations. Hearing their views and considerations are absolutely essential and key to all of our work providing that guidance, working closely with Acas, where we can provide that training and support. It's something we are working really closely with us on providing those resources that they need. The phased implementation has been really important throughout the past two years to in terms of guidance of when things will be introduced in terms of the Employment Rights Act.
So we absolutely are committed to working with our small businesses who are the backbone really, really closely. In addition to that, the support that we're giving them, whether it's small business strategy, the work we're doing on late payments, access to finance, open opportunities for exports and trade. We're always really keen, absolutely to work with our small businesses and give them the support that they need. Just to finish, before I respond to colleagues on this side of the House, and I thank them again for their contributions, I just want to say that the party opposite often talk about workers rights, and the shadow minister mentioned the pro-worker, pro-business angle, which is absolutely what I've been saying consistently in the approach to this legislation.
But the shadow minister mentioned workers rights as though they are a threat to business, despite saying pro-worker pro-business. And we believe, as we discussed in detail yesterday in a different essay, that good employment relations are actually a sign of strength of a successful economy. This is part of our promise to strengthen workers rights, and this legislation gives trade unions, in particular, that proper power and ability to to organise, whilst keeping those clear safeguards that I've mentioned in my introductory remarks is how we are taking that sensible and proportionate framework to my colleagues who have raised numerous issues, and again, I thank them for it.
I share absolutely their ambition for a strong and effective right of access. These regulations are a really important part of making that right real. And we we basically share and judge how this framework by whether it helps workers in practice to organise and give them that meaningful route to deliver on the policy objectives set out in the Employment Rights Act, which lots of colleagues have spoken to today, and engaging with workers on that statutory access purposes is absolutely essential.
That's why we've committed to the review, which I mentioned in my opening remarks within six months of implementation, that will look at a lot of the practical issues that colleagues have raised today, including the operation of the enforcement regime, including whether the penalty regime remains proportionate and effective in encouraging compliance. It will look at the 21 worker threshold briefly. Very briefly.
And so particularly for ERA, as he mentioned, we're working closely with SMEs, particularly on the consultations. Hearing their views and considerations are absolutely essential and key to all of our work providing that guidance, working closely with Acas, where we can provide that training and support. It's something we are working really closely with us on providing those resources that they need. The phased implementation has been really important throughout the past two years to in terms of guidance of when things will be introduced in terms of the Employment Rights Act.
So we absolutely are committed to working with our small businesses who are the backbone really, really closely. In addition to that, the support that we're giving them, whether it's small business strategy, the work we're doing on late payments, access to finance, open opportunities for exports and trade. We're always really keen, absolutely to work with our small businesses and give them the support that they need. Just to finish, before I respond to colleagues on this side of the House, and I thank them again for their contributions, I just want to say that the party opposite often talk about workers rights, and the shadow minister mentioned the pro-worker, pro-business angle, which is absolutely what I've been saying consistently in the approach to this legislation.
But the shadow minister mentioned workers rights as though they are a threat to business, despite saying pro-worker pro-business. And we believe, as we discussed in detail yesterday in a different essay, that good employment relations are actually a sign of strength of a successful economy. This is part of our promise to strengthen workers rights, and this legislation gives trade unions, in particular, that proper power and ability to to organise, whilst keeping those clear safeguards that I've mentioned in my introductory remarks is how we are taking that sensible and proportionate framework to my colleagues who have raised numerous issues, and again, I thank them for it.
I share absolutely their ambition for a strong and effective right of access. These regulations are a really important part of making that right real. And we we basically share and judge how this framework by whether it helps workers in practice to organise and give them that meaningful route to deliver on the policy objectives set out in the Employment Rights Act, which lots of colleagues have spoken to today, and engaging with workers on that statutory access purposes is absolutely essential.
That's why we've committed to the review, which I mentioned in my opening remarks within six months of implementation, that will look at a lot of the practical issues that colleagues have raised today, including the operation of the enforcement regime, including whether the penalty regime remains proportionate and effective in encouraging compliance. It will look at the 21 worker threshold briefly. Very briefly.
15:11
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I do welcome the minister when she says there'll be a review within six months. Can she be quite clear and give some clarity and certainty is that the review will start within six months, is that the review will have concluded within six months. If the review starts within six months, how long does she anticipate the review to take? Because I am sadly old enough to remember government reviews that start within six months. Take two and a half years, and she knows there are others on her desk.
I nag her about. They've been there for two and a half years. When will we get the outcome of that review? Because the review itself is important, but knowing the consequences of changes that come from that are the things that we will all be more interested in.
I nag her about. They've been there for two and a half years. When will we get the outcome of that review? Because the review itself is important, but knowing the consequences of changes that come from that are the things that we will all be more interested in.
15:12
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We have committed to reviewing the framework within six months of implementation, and I will absolutely work with him closely on the timelines, exactly what that looks like. And I was very keen to be kept updated as colleagues on this side of the House are on exactly what that review looks like, and we work really closely. I commit to that today to provide him with updates as much as I can.
Just to finish, in terms of what the review will look at, the 21 worker threshold case, decision making, model terms, digital access and joint applications. So I thank colleagues for everything that they have raised regarding that. Now, just turning to colleagues that have mentioned seafarers, particularly concerns that have been raised by the RMT. Thank you to colleagues for bringing it to this committee. I'm absolutely, as a starting point, happy to commit to engaging further with colleagues and with the maritime trade unions on how access provisions on.
Just to finish, in terms of what the review will look at, the 21 worker threshold case, decision making, model terms, digital access and joint applications. So I thank colleagues for everything that they have raised regarding that. Now, just turning to colleagues that have mentioned seafarers, particularly concerns that have been raised by the RMT. Thank you to colleagues for bringing it to this committee. I'm absolutely, as a starting point, happy to commit to engaging further with colleagues and with the maritime trade unions on how access provisions on.
15:13
15:14
15:14
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I very much thank the way I have an organisation in my constituency, Queen Victoria's Seafarers Rest, who do excellent work with seafarers and some of the stories they have shared about where conditions on board fall below. What we would expect can be truly horrific. One of the issues that they have flagged is that sometimes this strays into the realm of violence against women and girls, and without having adequate protections for UK seafarers, particularly women seafarers, we risk making this situation worse.
I'd be very grateful if she was able to meet with me, so we can discuss this a little bit further and potentially to meet with seafarers. Rest that is in my patch to talk through some of the things that they've seen.
I'd be very grateful if she was able to meet with me, so we can discuss this a little bit further and potentially to meet with seafarers. Rest that is in my patch to talk through some of the things that they've seen.
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:16
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Giving way, and I should declare my union activity in that. I'm a former member of the NUG. I don't miss it at all. It did nothing for me, took money out of my wages and did very little for me. But my father was a marine engineer, and when he joined British Petroleum in the 60s, the number of ships that BP alone had British flagged was greater than the entire number of British flag British flagged ships in the modern era.
If the government is so concerned about British sailors on British ships, should they be looking at the way British ships are registered? Other countries use this to generate revenue. There's a very expensive burden. If you want to register ship in this country. Should we be perhaps looking at how it's possible to get more ships under the red enzyme?
If the government is so concerned about British sailors on British ships, should they be looking at the way British ships are registered? Other countries use this to generate revenue. There's a very expensive burden. If you want to register ship in this country. Should we be perhaps looking at how it's possible to get more ships under the red enzyme?
15:17
15:17
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I thank the honourable member for his intervention. I'm sure he's also talking to the minister responsible for the sector directly to raise his concerns, particularly regarding this this access requirement, as I hope colleagues have heard, my commitment to absolutely follow up and engage with them further. That invitation, of course, extends how we engage to with the maritime trade unions on access provision, in particular in the context of seafarers and merchant shipping with a close connection to the UK.
So will absolutely commit to that today and form part of the review following implementation and of course, through our wider employment rights legislation, we are absolutely committed to improving protection powers to protect the working conditions of those who are working abroad. International services frequently calling at UK ports. So I hope that reassurance is welcomed by colleagues in terms of follow ups and in the review chair. I think I've covered lots of the questions that have been raised today, but I'm always happy to follow up because I hope members will agree with me that the regulations we've discussed at detail today and the accompanying code of practice strike that appropriate balance and will commit to that further follow up in the review of how this legislation plays out in practice, to absolutely meet the intention of it that we've outlined in the act and detail a small, very quick.
So will absolutely commit to that today and form part of the review following implementation and of course, through our wider employment rights legislation, we are absolutely committed to improving protection powers to protect the working conditions of those who are working abroad. International services frequently calling at UK ports. So I hope that reassurance is welcomed by colleagues in terms of follow ups and in the review chair. I think I've covered lots of the questions that have been raised today, but I'm always happy to follow up because I hope members will agree with me that the regulations we've discussed at detail today and the accompanying code of practice strike that appropriate balance and will commit to that further follow up in the review of how this legislation plays out in practice, to absolutely meet the intention of it that we've outlined in the act and detail a small, very quick.
15:19
15:19
15:20
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Because the minister hasn't quite touched on the the cap on the fines that go to the big companies. Now, if she will allow or whether she think it's sufficient enough. So Amazon's turnover this year was 30 billion. That's 30,000 million. The maximum fine they can get in a calendar year is half a million. That's one 60,000. That's the equivalent of MPs being fined £1.50 of our parliamentary salary.
Does she honestly believe that level of potential fine is a deterrent from bad behaviour?
Does she honestly believe that level of potential fine is a deterrent from bad behaviour?
15:21
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I thank my honourable friend for his intervention. I hope he heard it. In terms of the review, what we are absolutely focused on in the enforcement regime is including whether the penalty regime that he spoke to and the example that he referenced today remains proportionate and effective in encouraging compliance. And that's why it's important that we are building it into review. Let's see how it works in practice and clearly where the CAC need to have that .
Further support in cases will be reviewing that and seeing how that policy plays out in practice to form a very essential part of our review. As I've previously mentioned, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the new rights operate effectively in the workplace. The review is a really key part to that, but this is an essential, significant moment in industrial relations across the UK. We want to foster that good practice, and I'm really grateful to everyone that's contributed to the consultations and worked with myself and my brilliant officials in the department to ensure that this legislation is being brought to the House today to come into effect next month.
We want to ensure they're effective, that the proportionate and suited to the realities of modern workplaces to. It's a shame that the opposition party can't support us today, because my question for them is, do they believe that workers should be able to hear from an independent trade union in their workplace? Because that is exactly what this legislation is about, and therefore, I commend the regulations and the codes of the committee.
Further support in cases will be reviewing that and seeing how that policy plays out in practice to form a very essential part of our review. As I've previously mentioned, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the new rights operate effectively in the workplace. The review is a really key part to that, but this is an essential, significant moment in industrial relations across the UK. We want to foster that good practice, and I'm really grateful to everyone that's contributed to the consultations and worked with myself and my brilliant officials in the department to ensure that this legislation is being brought to the House today to come into effect next month.
We want to ensure they're effective, that the proportionate and suited to the realities of modern workplaces to. It's a shame that the opposition party can't support us today, because my question for them is, do they believe that workers should be able to hear from an independent trade union in their workplace? Because that is exactly what this legislation is about, and therefore, I commend the regulations and the codes of the committee.
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22